Why YEC can seem plausible

[steve_bank]

Lacking logical-sense can eroneously produce all sorts of theoretical science beliefs.

True, but that is how theoretical science advances. In the long run bad ideas fall away. Logic alone, IOW the syllogism, does not guarantee truth in reality. A logically consistent argument, no contradictions, can be made about god. However there is no objective supporting evidence.

It took a long time for Einstein's theories to be experimentally demonstrated. In the early 20th century there were many competing theories to explain electric current. Experimentally only one worked. The electron or quantization of charge.

In all of science no one claims any absolute truth. The last 300 years has been a c0ntinuous change in science.

In contrast in the middle of a pandemic the religious claim god is in control and pray. When you are on a jet on the takepff roll do you belive the jet will fly because

a god wills it
b angels carry it.
or
c aerodynamics based on proven scince

There really is no conflict between science and religion unless you create on to cover your own beliefs which are challenged by science. The Catholics always tried to make since conform to theology. Even something as simple as the Earth going around the Sun...Galileo.

Believe what you will. Let me know when you choose to ignore science and go by faith.

 

[steve_bank]

Lacking logical-sense can eroneously produce all sorts of theoretical science beliefs.

can you name three examples? Where a hypothesis made it all the way to theory, and you can show the LOGIC errors that indicate it's in error?

Because i do not think you can. Rather, i suspect that you know of later scientific discoveries that disprove earlier scientific understanding, making some of those beliefs look foolish now, from our perspective, from our understanding.
I doubt you can show how a contemporary could have used logic at the time, rather than future science.

I was talking about people who take the mere theory ...a current one (among 10 similar alternative variations) for example, and pretend that it disproves the possibility of there being God. The discussions regarding this ...exists on the forum.

God can not be proven or disproven. That is why it is faith not science. Theists try to shore up faith by rejecting uncomfortable science or attacking science.

Science can and is used to evaluate specific claims of the supernatural. Like telepathy or telekinesis. Or miracles.

When in Europe Ben Franklin developed a reputation for debunking pseudo science.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I was talking about people who take the mere theory ...a current one (among 10 similar alternative variations) for example, and pretend that it disproves the possibility of there being God. The discussions regarding this ...exists on the forum.

I asked for examples. You're kind pf alluding to the idea examples could be found... but not really showing an illogical person using science to engender a false belief. Try again?

 

[skepticalbip]

Lacking logical-sense can eroneously produce all sorts of theoretical science beliefs.

can you name three examples? Where a hypothesis made it all the way to theory, and you can show the LOGIC errors that indicate it's in error?

Because i do not think you can. Rather, i suspect that you know of later scientific discoveries that disprove earlier scientific understanding, making some of those beliefs look foolish now, from our perspective, from our understanding.
I doubt you can show how a contemporary could have used logic at the time, rather than future science.

I was talking about people who take the mere theory ...a current one (among 10 similar alternative variations) for example, and pretend that it disproves the possibility of there being God. The discussions regarding this ...exists on the forum.

You are tilting at a straw man. There is nothing in science that "disproves" a god. There is much in science that demonstrates that the claims about their god's abilities and actions made by 'true believers' are little more than wishful thinking.

 

[Learner]

I was talking about people who take the mere theory ...a current one (among 10 similar alternative variations) for example, and pretend that it disproves the possibility of there being God. The discussions regarding this ...exists on the forum.

I asked for examples. You're kind pf alluding to the idea examples could be found... but not really showing an illogical person using science to engender a false belief. Try again?

I am alluding to your fellow atheists on this forum (not the scientists themselves) who used a theory to say God couldn't exist.

( We could have a little wager for the fun of it. If it can be found - then you and anyone else that wants to join in the fun will have to sign-off with... I LOVE JESUS! at the end of your next 5 posts. )

 

[Keith&Co.]

I was talking about people who take the mere theory ...a current one (among 10 similar alternative variations) for example, and pretend that it disproves the possibility of there being God. The discussions regarding this ...exists on the forum.

I asked for examples. You're kind pf alluding to the idea examples could be found... but not really showing an illogical person using science to engender a false belief. Try again?

I am alluding to your fellow atheists on this forum (not the scientists themselves) who used a theory to say God couldn't exist.

( We could have a little wager for the fun of it. If it can be found - then you and anyone else that wants to join in the fun will have to sign-off with... I LOVE JESUS! at the end of your next 5 posts. )

And again, you haven't come up with three examples.

Note, by now you should expect that your examples, if they ever appear, need to withstand scrutiny. They need to actually display what you think they display, not just highlight your failure to read for content.

(As to the wager, you're actually asking me to take your god's name in vain? Did you forget that's supposed to be a no-no? Or are you trying to get me in trouble with your skyguy?)

 

[DBT]

Lacking logical-sense can eroneously produce all sorts of theoretical science beliefs.

What sort of beliefs do you mean?

 

[steve_bank]

I was talking about people who take the mere theory ...a current one (among 10 similar alternative variations) for example, and pretend that it disproves the possibility of there being God. The discussions regarding this ...exists on the forum.

I asked for examples. You're kind pf alluding to the idea examples could be found... but not really showing an illogical person using science to engender a false belief. Try again?

I am alluding to your fellow atheists on this forum (not the scientists themselves) who used a theory to say God couldn't exist.

( We could have a little wager for the fun of it. If it can be found - then you and anyone else that wants to join in the fun will have to sign-off with... I LOVE JESUS! at the end of your next 5 posts. )

Exactly what theory is that and who said it?

Scientists are not uber logical unfeeling Vulcans. Having science credentials in no ways infers validity or speaking in the name of 'science'. There is no Pope of science or ruling body. There is no 'science' that works collectively. There is no holy scriptura of science.

Hawking made some strange conclusions at times. He wrote he could prove the universe 'creates itself'.

The process begins with a paper. Next step is an informal peer review. Then one attempts to get it up the review chain ending in review and publication by a major journal. It is a long non linear process.

Contrast with Christianity where anyone can preach an interpretation of the bible and gather a following. Some get rich by it. The 'god wants you to be rich' success gospel that arose in the 90s.

Einstein's relativity was initially rejected. He gained fame initially for something else.

When you poke at science there is really nothing to poke at, at least as you imagine it. 'Science' does not get together and collectively decide let's disprove god. They have better more productive things to do.

 

[skepticalbip]

... snip ....

When you poke at science there is really nothing to poke at, at least as you imagine it. 'Science' does not get together and collectively decide let's disprove god. They have better more productive things to do.

True. The only sciences I am aware of that even address the question of gods would be the 'soft sciences' of phycology and sociology. Even then, they wouldn't be addressing the existence of the maxi-critter but the people who believe, why people believe in it, and how the belief effects them.

 

[angelo]

I haven't read the whole thread, but I'm of the opinion that the burden of proof for a god is and always will be with the claimant.

By that I mean using the bible to prove the bible is futile!

 

[excreationist]

I haven't read the whole thread, but I'm of the opinion that the burden of proof for a god is and always will be with the claimant.

By that I mean using the bible to prove the bible is futile!

I'm saying that YEC can seem plausible to its believers (like I used to be) - not that they can prove it convincingly.

 

[James Brown]

Isn't that true of everything? If you believe in something, you find it plausible. If you find something plausible, you believe in it.

 

[angelo]

Isn't that true of everything? If you believe in something, you find it plausible. If you find something plausible, you believe in it.

Such as a " socialist utopia?'

 

[James Brown]

Isn't that true of everything? If you believe in something, you find it plausible. If you find something plausible, you believe in it.

Such as a " socialist utopia?'

Sure. Or Galt's Gulch, or conservo-libertarian paradises where government is unnecessary because the free market ensures that everyone behaves themselves properly and where no one ever needs help because everyone would rather die than not be self-sufficient and where free riders don't exist because they are too embarrassed to even think of wanting to skirt the unwritten rules by making private fortunes from public resources.

Every belief should undergo thorough real-world testing.

 

[excreationist]

Isn't that true of everything? If you believe in something, you find it plausible. If you find something plausible, you believe in it.

I mean even for quite intelligent people... like pretty good programmers and Jonathan Sarfati, a NZ chess champion. YECs have counter-arguments for just about everything.

 

[Lion IRC]

I haven't read the whole thread, but I'm of the opinion that the burden of proof for a god is and always will be with the claimant.

By that I mean using the bible to prove the bible is futile!

The persuasive burden is on who ever wants to persuade.

If atheists wish to remain unpersuasive, that's fine by me.

 

[atrib]

...

Duplicate deleted

 

[atrib]

I haven't read the whole thread, but I'm of the opinion that the burden of proof for a god is and always will be with the claimant.

By that I mean using the bible to prove the bible is futile!

The persuasive burden is on who ever wants to persuade.

If atheists wish to remain unpersuasive, that's fine by me.

The reasonable response to any claim regarding supernatural phenomenon should be skepticism. This statement is not controversial in the least. It is not for the atheist to provide a convincing argument to counter supernatural claims; it is the burden of the person making the claim. I am certain you understand this, even though your religious programming will not allow you to acknowledge it openly.

If God really exists, and this God loves us and wants to have a relationship with us, then it makes no sense that it would choose to hide itself from us. The fact that it does so, despite the prayers and entreaties of billions of people, speaks volumes against its existence. Again, this is not a controversial statement, but your programming will not allow you to acknowledge this in public.

Religion is about ritual, deliberately designed to keep people from pondering on such basic questions. There is a reason that the Roman Church holds elaborate masses where authority figures dressed in grand robes hand out wine and wafers to the faithful, and ask them to believe that they can be one with their God (or technically, their God's formerly human, and now undead clone). They don't want you to think about the fundamental absurdity of the premise or ask any questions, and everything has to be a grand show to cover up the fact that none of it makes any sense. Mindless, rote repetition of rituals is what keeps the faithful faithful.

If you are gullible enough to swallow these claims without question, then you probably deserve to live your life as a prisoner in your own head.

 

[excreationist]

.....If God really exists, and this God loves us and wants to have a relationship with us, then it makes no sense that it would choose to hide itself from us. The fact that it does so, despite the prayers and entreaties of billions of people, speaks volumes against its existence....

It isn't straight-forward but that's my belief...

https://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?21819-A-God-without-compelling-evidence

 

[DBT]

I haven't read the whole thread, but I'm of the opinion that the burden of proof for a god is and always will be with the claimant.

By that I mean using the bible to prove the bible is futile!

The persuasive burden is on who ever wants to persuade.

If atheists wish to remain unpersuasive, that's fine by me.

What does it take to persuade?